Constraining Soil Freezing Models using Observed Soil Freezing Characteristic Curves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Estimate Soil Freezing Characteristic Curves (SFCCs) and uncertainty bounds based on a compilation of existing measured SFCCs. Key Findings Uncertainty in measured SFCCs is estimated based on measurement technique, water content, and soil disturbance An open-source tool for estimating and constraining SFCCs is developed for use in parameterizing freeze/thaw models Abstract Cold-regions landscapes are undergoing rapid change due to a warming climate. This change is impacting many elements of the landscape and is often controlled by soil freeze/thaw processes. Soil freeze/thaw is governed by the Soil Freezing Characteristic Curve (SFCC) that relates the soil temperature to its unfrozen water content. This relation is needed in all physically based numerical models including soil freeze/thaw processes. A repository of all collected SFCC data and an R package for accessing and processing this data was presented in "A Repository of 100+ Years of Measured Soil Freezing Characteristic Curves". This rich SFCC dataset is synthesized with a focus on potential sources of error due to the combination of measurement technique, data interpretation, and physical freeze-thaw process in a specific soil. Particular attention is given to combining sources of error and working with datasets given incomplete and missing metadata. A tool is developed to extract an SFCC for a soil with specified properties alongside its uncertainty bounds. This tool is intended for use in freeze/thaw models to improve freeze/thaw estimates, and better represent the ice and liquid water content of freezing soils. As phase change accounts for a vast majority of the energy budget in freezing soils, accurately representing the process is essential for realistic predictions. In addition, SFCC type curves are provided for the common sand, silt, clay, and organic soil textures when additional data is unavailable to define the SFCC more precisely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".